Life cycle and critical raw material analysis of shared e-scooters in Helsinki, Finland

Engineering notes

Key topics: autonomous driving, occupancy. See the paper for implementation details and experimental results.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为端到端自动驾驶、BEV感知、3D目标检测、轨迹预测、路径规划、LiDAR感知等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Abstract Purpose Shared e‑scooters are increasingly integrated into urban transport systems, yet their environmental performance depends strongly on design, utilisation, and end‑of‑life management. This study evaluates the environmental impacts and critical raw material (CRM) use efficiency of a dockless shared e‑scooter system operating in Helsinki, Finland, under Nordic conditions. Methods An explorative, cradle‑to‑cradle life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted and complemented by an EU‑specific CRM efficiency analysis. Environmental impacts were quantified per person‑kilometre and at fleet level using the EF 3.1 method. Four deterministic scenarios represent first‑ and second‑generation e‑scooters with different material compositions, lifetimes, and operational strategies, including seasonal relocation extending lifetime mileage. The inventory is based on confidential operator interviews and literature. Sensitivity and Monte Carlo uncertainty analyses were applied to assess the robustness of key assumptions. Results Manufacturing dominates climate impacts in all scenarios, driven by aluminium structures and lithium‑ion batteries. Net climate impacts range from approximately 40 to 61 g CO 2 e per person‑kilometre under baseline assumptions but increase sharply at low lifetime mileage explored in the sensitivity analysis. Extending lifetime mileage - particularly through seasonal use in other markets - reduces climate impacts by up to 20%, while effective recycling lowers net impacts by 35–41%. CRM efficiency follows similar patterns: higher utilisation substantially improves CRM use efficiency, whereas heavier e‑scooter designs increase CRM intensity despite longer lifetimes. At fleet level, shared e‑scooters contribute only marginally to total urban transport emissions but perform worse than electrified public transport and offer benefits mainly when substituting low‑occupancy car travel. Building on earlier product‑level LCAs, this study reflects the Finnish context and adds a system‑level perspective by integrating scenario‑based lifetime extension, fleet‑level impacts, and an EU‑specific CRM efficiency analysis. Conclusions Shared e‑scooters can support sustainable mobility only under conditions of high utilisation, extended lifespan, and effective recycling. Linking LCA with CRM analysis highlights circularity strategies - material choices, durability, and recovery - as critical levers for reducing environmental impacts and supply risks. Without these measures, and without a modal shift away from more polluting transport modes, shared e‑scooters risk increasing rather than reducing urban transport emissions. Recommendations Operators should prioritize robust designs, maintenance, proper recycling, and optimize fleet size to increase lifetime mileage. Municipal policies should incentivize higher utilization and modal shifts away from private cars. Future research should refine CRM indicators and examine systemic effects, including modal substitution and induced demand, to determine whether shared e-scooters deliver net sustainability benefits.

Links and sources

• PDF from original source

Comments